My candidate of choice is kicking butt on raising money

[Len Budney]

Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?

He can keep my $100. I can afford it; I don't live in my mother's basement. Actually it's a duplex, and my tenant lives downstairs.

--Len.

[roo_ster]

BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.

It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.

Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?

MW:
Even better.  He'll subsidize the 10,000 most fanatical Paulistas to pick up stakes and move to NH to add to the Free-Staters already there.

Just thought I'd warn you. 

[Manedwolf]

BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.

It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.

Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?

MW:
Even better.  He'll subsidize the 10,000 most fanatical Paulistas to pick up stakes and move to NH to add to the Free-Staters already there.
Just thought I'd warn you. 

I'll buy a remote-controlled black helicopter and annoy them with it till they go completely paranoid and run away, then.

[Paddy]

"Seized power? Just what has he done at all about those who have seized power in this country that fall under his executive office? How about .. nothing?"

Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.

There are more than a few people who think Bush stole the 2000 election.  Here's a parody, but you have to listen to both parts to get the detail.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Seized power? Just what has he done at all about those who have seized power in this country that fall under his executive office? How about .. nothing?"

Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.

There are more than a few people who think Bush stole the 2000 election.  Here's a parody, but you have to listen to both parts to get the detail.

Just an aside, I don't want to hijack this thread, but do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Bush stole the election in 2000?

[Paddy]

Just an aside, I don't want to hijack this thread, but do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Bush stole the election in 2000?

I think the will of the people was circumvented by legal means, and that democracy took a big hit.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7421.html

[Paddy]

I think there is a lot of grassroots support for RP.  Is he perfect?  Far from it, but he ain't Frick 'n Frack, or Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum, either.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Just an aside, I don't want to hijack this thread, but do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Bush stole the election in 2000?

I think the will of the people was circumvented by legal means, and that democracy took a big hit.

Okidoke.  I'll take that as a 'yes'.

[LAK]

Mr Irwin,


How about the 'ATF?

[Manedwolf]

Um.



ATF has been around a pretty long time, you realize.

[K Frame]

Mr Irwin,


How about the 'ATF?

How about them?

Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.

On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.

[LAK]

How about them?

Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.

On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.

So states you. I disagree, as do plenty of other people in this country. The ATF has usurped and abused plenty of powers.

And why not? Who has intervined to the contrary? You really are attempting to skew my point; while I would disagree with those who would state that George W Bush has seized power in this country, he has failed to reign in those under him that have. The ATF have done just that.

It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.

[Manedwolf]

It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.

Bush is responsible for not reining in an agency that's been goose-stepping since Prohibition?

Wow. That's just...wow.

[Sergeant Bob]

How about them?

Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.

On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.

So states you. I disagree, as do plenty of other people in this country. The ATF has usurped and abused plenty of powers.

And why not? Who has intervined to the contrary? You really are attempting to skew my point; while I would disagree with those who would state that George W Bush has seized power in this country, he has failed to reign in those under him that have. The ATF have done just that.

It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.

So, please tell us how Bush is supposed to "reign in" an organization working within the laws passed by Congress.

[Len Budney]

LAK, I agree that the BATFE isn't a good example of specific wrong-doing by Bush. Out of curiosity, why aren't you citing examples like the creation of the Heimatsicherheitsdienst, or USA PATRIOT, or the MCA, or torture, or Gitmo, or warrantless spying on US citizens, or the no-fly lists,  or any number of other things specifically supported and/or started by Bush?

--Len.

[K Frame]

"So states you. I disagree, as do plenty of other people in this country."

Yes, I'm sure plenty of people do share your belief.

Then again, plenty of people in the United States believe that Israel (or George Bush, or the Illuminati, or whatever group you don't like/fear) was responsible for 9-11, that it was actually missiles that hit the WTC and the Pentagon and that eyewitnesses who claim otherwise are "part of the conspiracy," and so on.

Consensus is NOT the same as fact.

[Tuco]

Bush is responsible for not reining in an agency that's been goose-stepping since Prohibition?

Wow. That's just...wow.

Not too remarkable a statement considering....

ANNOUNCEMENT
Sarcasm follows.
....considering

"The Clinton's" were responsible for the Waco and the Weaver incidents;

Nixon was responsible for the Wounded Knee incident;

JE Carter was responsible for a botched rescue attempt of hostages in Tehran.

sarcasm ends here.

As Truman(?) said of the presidency "The buck stops (t)here.

[CNYCacher]

6.1 million dollars. . . continue with your regularly scheduled thread drift.

[Bigjake]

Enough to buy him a mighty fine concession speech.  Ron Paul is still a republican, no?  At least Liberman had the balls to go independent.  If Paul had a hair on his ass, he wouldn't need the repubs. Libertarians?? lol.

[J.J.]

This thread is really going downhill

I will suggest we keep it CLEAN.

Thanks.

[Paddy]

Something's wrong when you have to raise, what, $100 million, $200 million to run for President.  People who 'give' that kind of money expect something in return.  So from Day 1, the President is owned.

There has to be a better way.

[LAK]

Mr Irwin,

Consensus is not fact. Right; and popularity is a mere measure of acceptence.

So I take it you do not accept that the ATF has in the context of my original point has seized some powers, and that the executive office has failed to do anything about that?  Or not? Seems you forgot to clear that up; since you implied initially that I was somehow off base on that point.

-------------

And this is one of the reasons Ron Paul has so much support, and is getting all this campaign money from individual citizens in addition to some corporate interests. That he will most assuredly deal with some of these renegade three letter agencies and more. This is something that George W Bush, like his father - and bosom buddy William Clinton - have steadfastly avoided. There is a degree in complicity between these people in this regard. And there is no other candidate currently running that will do so.

----------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[LAK]

Sergeant Bob

So, please tell us how Bush is supposed to "reign in" an organization working within the laws passed by Congress.

The ATF is a tax collection agency - or rather was. It is tasked with collecting taxes in accordance with the laws passed by Congress.

Those laws do not detail ATF regulations and operating procedures, and do not include writing it's own definitions and running roughshod over the citizens of this country. The ATF is a Federal agency that falls under the Executive Ofiice - ultimately the pres. The POTUS is the highest ranking person in the Executive Office and thus has the authority to direct agencies like the ATF by by administration, and if necessary by Executive Order.

Simple enough.